Hate is good

[Rev. Gary (revgms)]

Factually is the best kind of correct.

Not necessarily. Sometimes it may be more appropriate to be socially correct, morally correct, aesthetically correct.....
That's exactly why I make the point, because you discuss right and wrong as if these were objective, factual issues when your examples are concerned with beliefs about right and wrong in the ethical, encultured, social senses and that makes the belief far more subjective.

Sam Harris answers that in his talk. 

There are empirical moral/ethical truths, maybe not for atoms and molecules, but for sentient beings there are. Anything that causes unnecessary suffering in sentient beings is objectively wrong. There may be more than one way to reach a "peak" of human flourishing and prosperity, but that is like saying there are more than a few vegetables that are good for you, or there are several poisons that will kill you.

[Rev. Gary (revgms)]

For instance, is denying equality of marriage right or wrong? Does it cause suffering? Does allowing it cause more suffering than not allowing it? Does the sun care either way?

[RighteousDude]

You probably know this already RD, but Hawthorn berries are organ specific for the heart and support its function almost regardless of the exact pathology.

Hawthorn and I are friends from way back but it's not gonna touch PSVT, which is what ails her even after $180,000 worth of high zoot modern medical miracle surgery (RF ablation, that is) last summer.

Long story, but the short version is that it was never a serious problem and never required medical intervention until first chronic traumatic stress then PTSD were introduced into the equation. We got the PTSD handled herbally, no longer requiring treatment, but that niggling remnant of it that is difficult to clear seems to complicate the PSVT. She usually doesn't believe the remnant is there, but sometimes agrees that it is, and she intensely dislikes cannabis which is my go-to for the last of a PTSD treatment and works every darn time (so far). I'm thinking Pedicularis, not because I've used it on PTSD before but because it's told me in the past that it'll work. If I'd known early enough last year that we might need it I would have gone out wildcrafting, but now I've got to wait because its favorite habitats are still under lingering snow.

I like Pedicularis well enough for attitude trim that I ought to get some anyway.  A little Elephant Head, a little Mullein, maybe a wee little pinch of Bearberry bark... now that's a smoke!

[Boston Rockbury]

You probably know this already RD, but Hawthorn berries are organ specific for the heart and support its function almost regardless of the exact pathology.

Hawthorn and I are friends from way back but it's not gonna touch PSVT, which is what ails her even after $180,000 worth of high zoot modern medical miracle surgery (RF ablation, that is) last summer.

Long story, but the short version is that it was never a serious problem and never required medical intervention until first chronic traumatic stress then PTSD were introduced into the equation. We got the PTSD handled herbally, no longer requiring treatment, but that niggling remnant of it that is difficult to clear seems to complicate the PSVT. She usually doesn't believe the remnant is there, but sometimes agrees that it is, and she intensely dislikes cannabis which is my go-to for the last of a PTSD treatment and works every darn time (so far). I'm thinking Pedicularis, not because I've used it on PTSD before but because it's told me in the past that it'll work. If I'd known early enough last year that we might need it I would have gone out wildcrafting, but now I've got to wait because its favorite habitats are still under lingering snow.

I like Pedicularis well enough for attitude trim that I ought to get some anyway.  A little Elephant Head, a little Mullein, maybe a wee little pinch of Bearberry bark... now that's a smoke!

I've never used Pedicularis but maybe I should as it's supposed to be good for neck and shoulder tension. I think its mildly sedative, relaxing vibe may give it a similar role to Leonorus but there is always the subtler side to a herbs personality that one doesn't really get from the books. I use Mullein in my smoke mix too. Been tempted to add in a bit of Datura (lot of it growing by the river).

[Boston Rockbury]

Factually is the best kind of correct.

Not necessarily. Sometimes it may be more appropriate to be socially correct, morally correct, aesthetically correct.....
That's exactly why I make the point, because you discuss right and wrong as if these were objective, factual issues when your examples are concerned with beliefs about right and wrong in the ethical, encultured, social senses and that makes the belief far more subjective.

Sam Harris answers that in his talk. 

There are empirical moral/ethical truths, maybe not for atoms and molecules, but for sentient beings there are. Anything that causes unnecessary suffering in sentient beings is objectively wrong. There may be more than one way to reach a "peak" of human flourishing and prosperity, but that is like saying there are more than a few vegetables that are good for you, or there are several poisons that will kill you.

And yet even the caste iron moral truth that you choose yourself 'that one person can not own another' has loads of problems. Once you get married and have kids your wife owns you financially, should she ever choose to divorce you. This can lead to all sorts of restrictions on a person's freedom. I'm not even saying it's wrong, plenty of folk would argue that it's a perfectly reasonable form of enforced responsibility but the fact is, we are owned by our partners, employers, children etc in significant ways and it isn't as clear as you suggest to say that it is morally wrong.

[Rev. Gary (revgms)]

Factually is the best kind of correct.

Not necessarily. Sometimes it may be more appropriate to be socially correct, morally correct, aesthetically correct.....
That's exactly why I make the point, because you discuss right and wrong as if these were objective, factual issues when your examples are concerned with beliefs about right and wrong in the ethical, encultured, social senses and that makes the belief far more subjective.

Sam Harris answers that in his talk. 

There are empirical moral/ethical truths, maybe not for atoms and molecules, but for sentient beings there are. Anything that causes unnecessary suffering in sentient beings is objectively wrong. There may be more than one way to reach a "peak" of human flourishing and prosperity, but that is like saying there are more than a few vegetables that are good for you, or there are several poisons that will kill you.

And yet even the caste iron moral truth that you choose yourself 'that one person can not own another' has loads of problems. Once you get married and have kids your wife owns you financially, should she ever choose to divorce you. This can lead to all sorts of restrictions on a person's freedom. I'm not even saying it's wrong, plenty of folk would argue that it's a perfectly reasonable form of enforced responsibility but the fact is, we are owned by our partners, employers, children etc in significant ways and it isn't as clear as you suggest to say that it is morally wrong.

Yes, being obliged by social contracts is exactly like being owned under institutionalized slavery.

But seriously, are you suggesting that because we we don't have all the answers, or have imperfect answers, that we can not discern what is a wrong answer?

Institutionalized slavery, such as the type realized in the US prior to the mid 19th century, right or wrong? As empathetic beings, can we not answer this question?

[Boston Rockbury]

Factually is the best kind of correct.

Not necessarily. Sometimes it may be more appropriate to be socially correct, morally correct, aesthetically correct.....
That's exactly why I make the point, because you discuss right and wrong as if these were objective, factual issues when your examples are concerned with beliefs about right and wrong in the ethical, encultured, social senses and that makes the belief far more subjective.

Sam Harris answers that in his talk. 

There are empirical moral/ethical truths, maybe not for atoms and molecules, but for sentient beings there are. Anything that causes unnecessary suffering in sentient beings is objectively wrong. There may be more than one way to reach a "peak" of human flourishing and prosperity, but that is like saying there are more than a few vegetables that are good for you, or there are several poisons that will kill you.

And yet even the caste iron moral truth that you choose yourself 'that one person can not own another' has loads of problems. Once you get married and have kids your wife owns you financially, should she ever choose to divorce you. This can lead to all sorts of restrictions on a person's freedom. I'm not even saying it's wrong, plenty of folk would argue that it's a perfectly reasonable form of enforced responsibility but the fact is, we are owned by our partners, employers, children etc in significant ways and it isn't as clear as you suggest to say that it is morally wrong.

Yes, being obliged by social contracts is exactly like being owned under institutionalized slavery.

But seriously, are you suggesting that because we we don't have all the answers, or have imperfect answers, that we can not discern what is a wrong answer?

Institutionalized slavery, such as the type realized in the US prior to the mid 19th century, right or wrong? As empathetic beings, can we not answer this question?

Anyone can pick out a moral issue which has been clarified by the passage of time and judged by history and say 'look we know the right answer' but that doesn't show that we can have the same clarity on the live ethical problems that face us right now: factory farming/organics, Arab/Israeli dispute, technology/global warming. The answers are rarely straightforward. Personally I own a gun but am in favour of gun control, I'm a liberal but think abortion is too widely available, I'm agnostic but defend people's right to their religious beliefs - that's just one person and it's already complex!

[RighteousDude]

I've never used Pedicularis but maybe I should as it's supposed to be good for neck and shoulder tension.

Yep, among the things it's good for there's that. And the neat thing is that it'll hit the cause as well as the symptom, temporarily. Tried Acorus calamus in conjunction with meditation?

I think its mildly sedative, relaxing vibe may give it a similar role to Leonorus but there is always the subtler side to a herbs personality that one doesn't really get from the books.

Books are nice and I love reading them, but I think that when it comes right down to it the best thing is to experience the plants because some things just don't translate well into words. A really fine example is Acorus calamus, which just steadfastly defies attempts to define it. Some louseworts I've known are downright stony. I've learned not to nibble if I'm too far from the road and don't have time for a nap. Well, not to nibble too much anyway. It's hard to say no.

Some years ago I consulted with a guy whose wife was unable to work and drawing disability due to a persistent shoulder spasm. She was something like 16 or 18 months into it, in constant pain, and hadn't had a single good night's sleep since it locked up on her. The docs tried everything they had on it, finally decided she'd make a good Oxycontin addict. You've probably seen people the same way, figuring that the herbal medicine thing is bullshit but the white coat gods can't pull a miracle out of their asses so desperation rules the day. I did what I always do, delegated the thinking to the subconscious that remembers more and collates it much faster than the conscious mind. It said, get this: Scutellaria. The books would say right direction, wrong answer. Too mild, works best on smooth muscle. But experience ruled the day, so I recommended it and suggested that he watch her face while she held a dropper-full under her tongue for a minute or so before swallowing -- because if it was going to work, he'd see it in her face before she consciously realized it, and it's always a big thrill to witness that. He did, she did, and she got her life back that day. Informed experience beats hell out of books every time.

My special lady friend was gifted a respiratory virus a few weeks ago, and it resulted in pleurisy. WTF. And here I am with no Asclepias on hand. On a lark we threw some Scutellaria at it for the pain, because I had about a half liter of tincture on hand, and it worked. I don't know the mechanism by which pleurisy pain is produced, wouldn't have thought to try a scullcap on it if I'd had another option at the ready, but there ya have it. (I was having trouble getting a handle on the diagnosis so we took her to the doc for confirmation. He prescribed Prednisone. WTF?)

I use Mullein in my smoke mix too. Been tempted to add in a bit of Datura (lot of it growing by the river).

I love Mullein. It's got some really cool magic to it.

Have you got experience with Datura? I don't personally know anyone who's been able to continue liking it. I hear that it's hugely unpleasant when it gets mad at you.

[Rev. Gary (revgms)]

Factually is the best kind of correct.

Not necessarily. Sometimes it may be more appropriate to be socially correct, morally correct, aesthetically correct.....
That's exactly why I make the point, because you discuss right and wrong as if these were objective, factual issues when your examples are concerned with beliefs about right and wrong in the ethical, encultured, social senses and that makes the belief far more subjective.

Sam Harris answers that in his talk. 

There are empirical moral/ethical truths, maybe not for atoms and molecules, but for sentient beings there are. Anything that causes unnecessary suffering in sentient beings is objectively wrong. There may be more than one way to reach a "peak" of human flourishing and prosperity, but that is like saying there are more than a few vegetables that are good for you, or there are several poisons that will kill you.

And yet even the caste iron moral truth that you choose yourself 'that one person can not own another' has loads of problems. Once you get married and have kids your wife owns you financially, should she ever choose to divorce you. This can lead to all sorts of restrictions on a person's freedom. I'm not even saying it's wrong, plenty of folk would argue that it's a perfectly reasonable form of enforced responsibility but the fact is, we are owned by our partners, employers, children etc in significant ways and it isn't as clear as you suggest to say that it is morally wrong.

Yes, being obliged by social contracts is exactly like being owned under institutionalized slavery.

But seriously, are you suggesting that because we we don't have all the answers, or have imperfect answers, that we can not discern what is a wrong answer?

Institutionalized slavery, such as the type realized in the US prior to the mid 19th century, right or wrong? As empathetic beings, can we not answer this question?

Anyone can pick out a moral issue which has been clarified by the passage of time and judged by history and say 'look we know the right answer' but that doesn't show that we can have the same clarity on the live ethical problems that face us right now: factory farming/organics, Arab/Israeli dispute, technology/global warming. The answers are rarely straightforward. Personally I own a gun but am in favour of gun control, I'm a liberal but think abortion is too widely available, I'm agnostic but defend people's right to their religious beliefs - that's just one person and it's already complex!

Never once said it was easy or that we have all the answers, but is that any reason not to try and know what leads human flourishing, progress and prosperity?

And my original appeal was about gay marriage, not settled by time, but the aggression of our time (and a more challenging question). Is denying equal rights to marriage right or wrong? We do not have the luxury of being able to pass on this, the world is demanding an answer now. In the context of human progress, is the belief that marriage is defined by Yahweh, and not by human societies right or wrong?

How about this, is meditation a product of Satanism? That is a real and current belief among some Christian cults, are you an agent of the dark lord? Or just maybe they hold wrong beliefs. http://johnthewitness.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/new-age-spirituality-is-satanic/

What I am not saying, that we have all the complete answers, that we should engage the same way Chris Mathews and Sean Hannity debate (if you can call it that). I am not suggesting we are all as witty and charming as Ricky Gervais and should go around challenging Christians the way he does. I am not suggesting there is a singular way, one path to the peaks of moral achievement, there are many paths to the top.

[Boston Rockbury]

I don't know the mechanism by which pleurisy pain is produced, wouldn't have thought to try a scullcap on it if I'd had another option at the ready, but there ya have it. (I was having trouble getting a handle on the diagnosis so we took her to the doc for confirmation. He prescribed Prednisone. WTF?)

I use Mullein in my smoke mix too. Been tempted to add in a bit of Datura (lot of it growing by the river).

I love Mullein. It's got some really cool magic to it.

Have you got experience with Datura? I don't personally know anyone who's been able to continue liking it. I hear that it's hugely unpleasant when it gets mad at you.

I think pleurisy pain is caused by a partial detachment of the lining between the lungs and the inner wall of the chest, or inflammation in that space causing friction. Typically worse with a deep breath because that puts the pleuritic lining under tension. Think I used to use Inula, haven't treated it for a while.

The Scutellaria we used to buy in England was crap, almost certainly highly adulterated. Best, as always, to wild craft your own, which can produce results very different from bought stuff.

I used to be a big Carlos Castaneda fan, so I was wary of Datura (Devil's weed) but I respond to it minimally.

Sounds like you work in a more intuitive way than me. I feel I have to know what it says in the books, sometimes it's useful, but often it gets in the way. My teacher, Chris Hedley, managed to combine the two and had great knowledge without ever losing a feel for what he was doing and a respect for the magic of the plants. Very groovy dude Chris.

[Boston Rockbury]

And my original appeal was about gay marriage, not settled by time, but the aggression of our time (and a more challenging question). Is denying equal rights to marriage right or wrong? We do not have the luxury of being able to pass on this, the world is demanding an answer now. In the context of human progress, is the belief that marriage is defined by Yahweh, and not by human societies right or wrong?

You can't take Yahwey out of the equation by saying that marriage should be defined by human society because a belief in Yahwey is imbedded into a lot of society and therefore forms part of how a society makes its decisions.

[Rev. Gary (revgms)]

And my original appeal was about gay marriage, not settled by time, but the aggression of our time (and a more challenging question). Is denying equal rights to marriage right or wrong? We do not have the luxury of being able to pass on this, the world is demanding an answer now. In the context of human progress, is the belief that marriage is defined by Yahweh, and not by human societies right or wrong?

You can't take Yahwey out of the equation by saying that marriage should be defined by human society because a belief in Yahwey is imbedded into a lot of society and therefore forms part of how a society makes its decisions.

But is that right? And does that extend to honor killings, beheading witches or stoning victims of rape for being whores?

So people should suffer inequality because other people have the belief Yaweh is real? So are you saying we should sanction inequality because we might offend one groups religious beliefs otherwise?

Sorry, you can not honor your love and partake in it the benefits and challenges of marriage, because it may offend Jim Bob Onetooth's beliefs in a meta-physical being.

[Boston Rockbury]

And my original appeal was about gay marriage, not settled by time, but the aggression of our time (and a more challenging question). Is denying equal rights to marriage right or wrong? We do not have the luxury of being able to pass on this, the world is demanding an answer now. In the context of human progress, is the belief that marriage is defined by Yahweh, and not by human societies right or wrong?

You can't take Yahwey out of the equation by saying that marriage should be defined by human society because a belief in Yahwey is imbedded into a lot of society and therefore forms part of how a society makes its decisions.

But is that right? And does that extend to honor killings, beheading witches or stoning victims of rape for being whores?

So people should suffer inequality because other people have the belief Yaweh is real? So are you saying we should sanction inequality because we might offend one groups religious beliefs otherwise?

Sorry, you can not honor your love and partake in it the benefits and challenges of marriage, because it may offend Jim Bob Onetooth's beliefs in a meta-physical being.

Well if king revgms ruled the world no doubt all the decisions would be perfect but in a democracy we have to take other people's beliefs, views etc' into account even when we don't agree with them.

[Rev. Gary (revgms)]

At the expense of what is actually beneficial for our species, or embracing what is destructive to our society? And no matter how absurd those beliefs are?

And does this extend to other domains, like science, is believing in creationism equivocal to believing in evolution, and should we base our policies on meta-physical claims based on belief over accepted scientific observations?

I know it is an appeal to authority, but let us check out what Buddha said on this subject 2500 years ago.

This is one of the best if not the best Buddha quotes. It sets the tone for what Shakyamuni is really saying.

"Don't blindly believe what I say. Don't believe me because others convince you of my words. Don't believe anything you see, read, or hear from others, whether of authority, religious teachers or texts. Don't rely on logic alone, nor speculation. Don't infer or be deceived by appearances."

"Do not give up your authority and follow blindly the will of others. This way will lead to only delusion."

"Find out for yourself what is truth, what is real. Discover that there are virtuous things and there are non-virtuous things. Once you have discovered for yourself give up the bad and embrace the good."

- The Buddha

[Boston Rockbury]

At the expense of what is actually beneficial for our species, or embracing what is destructive to our society? And no matter how absurd those beliefs are?

And does this extend to other domains, like science, is believing in creationism equivocal to believing in evolution, and should we base our policies on meta-physical claims based on belief over accepted scientific observations?

I know it is an appeal to authority, but let us check out what Buddha said on this subject 2500 years ago.

This is one of the best if not the best Buddha quotes. It sets the tone for what Shakyamuni is really saying.

"Don't blindly believe what I say. Don't believe me because others convince you of my words. Don't believe anything you see, read, or hear from others, whether of authority, religious teachers or texts. Don't rely on logic alone, nor speculation. Don't infer or be deceived by appearances."

"Do not give up your authority and follow blindly the will of others. This way will lead to only delusion."

"Find out for yourself what is truth, what is real. Discover that there are virtuous things and there are non-virtuous things. Once you have discovered for yourself give up the bad and embrace the good."

- The Buddha

And the Buddha's words would apply to not blindly following what scientists say just because they are scientists. It may ultimately be the results of technology and pollution which do more damage to the planet and humans than anything that has been invented by religions.